The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Contains nothing that isn't already linked through the extensive listings in the lead article. Worthless for navigation. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 22:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge to {{ John Updike}} and delete. Ruslik_ Zero 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NENAN. Only four links, no chance of expansion. The adaptations can be put on Updike's template. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Snow keep - I was tempted to do this yesterday, and it's even clearer today, that consensus is for keeping this. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This template serves no practical purpose that I can divine. CSDs usually take from several minutes to several hours to be reviewed and actioned by admins, so even without this template, it would be very unusual for an article to be CSDed in under 10 minutes, except in the cases of blatant vandalism or attack pages.
The template has a negative effect in that it discredits and discourage new page reviewers who, in good faith, nominate articles for CSD based on their experience and relatively unambiguous guidelines.
The template has the potential for WP:POINTY abuse as well as innocent misuse. It seems likely that almost all admins and most page reviewers (except for very new ones) are aware of the guideline of waiting for 10 minutes before adding a CSD tag. However, there are many exceptions where waiting 10 minutes is not warranted, and may actually cause harm. It does not seem to contribute to improving the encyclopedia, and its existence seems to be a net negative. - Mr X 17:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the template is that when you come across an empty or context lacking article that has, against the consensus, been "hastily tagged" seconds after creation, you add this tag at the top to inform the reviewing admin of the timing issue, so that we avoid the creation→tagging-in-second→deletion-in-seconds problem. This template advises of the haste issue, and all it does is seek that ten minute window that should have been given in the first place, to see if the missing content we hope for, will be added in the few minutes that were not given before the tagging. The template contains a time parameter so that if the article is not fixed by the addition of the missing content in the ten minute window, normal deletion consideration is resumed.
One thing to note is that a common template deletion basis is lack of use. Unlike most transcluded templates, you cannot just click on what links here to check frequency of use because the template is always removed from an article within ten minutes, either by deletion or the speedy being declined. So even if it's used 50 times per day, at any given moment it may be unused anywhere.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The simple fact is that looking at the timing of tagging is not part of many admin's protocol. They look to the content; they look at the talk page; they don't look at whether it was tagged immediately. I think the percentage this can save is rather irrelevant. You'll get no argument from me that most of the time the ten minute window will not result in anything being added. In fact, I know without doubt that that is the case because most A1s and A3s you come across even hours after tagging have not been edited at all. This is also a "so what?" This stops the deletion of no articles that should be deleted. If it works 1 out of 100 times that's good.
To put it another way, the 99 times it fails it causes no harm. However, the 1 time is succeeds it has great benefit. Here's how it ideally works that one time: Brand new user comes along, starts article with "John Doe is a mathematician". It's tagged 38 seconds after creation under A3 while that rare newbie is working on their second edit that continues on: "John Doe won the Fields Medal in 1948 for X, and his work was influential in quantum mechanics because Y, and was... etc." with inline citations to reliable sources. Admin doesn't delete because of tag; second edit gets posted; A3 is properly declined; new user is not driven away and becomes an admin two years later. Is that gonna happen often? Hell no. If it happens once it's worth it.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 06:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Little used template that adds unencyclopedic information to airport articles and provides non-neutral links to websites similar to spam. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and these links do not add to the article. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Mostly empty (redlinks), malformatted, and I'm not seeing a real reason to have it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Contains nothing that isn't already linked through the extensive listings in the lead article. Worthless for navigation. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 22:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge to {{ John Updike}} and delete. Ruslik_ Zero 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NENAN. Only four links, no chance of expansion. The adaptations can be put on Updike's template. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Snow keep - I was tempted to do this yesterday, and it's even clearer today, that consensus is for keeping this. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This template serves no practical purpose that I can divine. CSDs usually take from several minutes to several hours to be reviewed and actioned by admins, so even without this template, it would be very unusual for an article to be CSDed in under 10 minutes, except in the cases of blatant vandalism or attack pages.
The template has a negative effect in that it discredits and discourage new page reviewers who, in good faith, nominate articles for CSD based on their experience and relatively unambiguous guidelines.
The template has the potential for WP:POINTY abuse as well as innocent misuse. It seems likely that almost all admins and most page reviewers (except for very new ones) are aware of the guideline of waiting for 10 minutes before adding a CSD tag. However, there are many exceptions where waiting 10 minutes is not warranted, and may actually cause harm. It does not seem to contribute to improving the encyclopedia, and its existence seems to be a net negative. - Mr X 17:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the template is that when you come across an empty or context lacking article that has, against the consensus, been "hastily tagged" seconds after creation, you add this tag at the top to inform the reviewing admin of the timing issue, so that we avoid the creation→tagging-in-second→deletion-in-seconds problem. This template advises of the haste issue, and all it does is seek that ten minute window that should have been given in the first place, to see if the missing content we hope for, will be added in the few minutes that were not given before the tagging. The template contains a time parameter so that if the article is not fixed by the addition of the missing content in the ten minute window, normal deletion consideration is resumed.
One thing to note is that a common template deletion basis is lack of use. Unlike most transcluded templates, you cannot just click on what links here to check frequency of use because the template is always removed from an article within ten minutes, either by deletion or the speedy being declined. So even if it's used 50 times per day, at any given moment it may be unused anywhere.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The simple fact is that looking at the timing of tagging is not part of many admin's protocol. They look to the content; they look at the talk page; they don't look at whether it was tagged immediately. I think the percentage this can save is rather irrelevant. You'll get no argument from me that most of the time the ten minute window will not result in anything being added. In fact, I know without doubt that that is the case because most A1s and A3s you come across even hours after tagging have not been edited at all. This is also a "so what?" This stops the deletion of no articles that should be deleted. If it works 1 out of 100 times that's good.
To put it another way, the 99 times it fails it causes no harm. However, the 1 time is succeeds it has great benefit. Here's how it ideally works that one time: Brand new user comes along, starts article with "John Doe is a mathematician". It's tagged 38 seconds after creation under A3 while that rare newbie is working on their second edit that continues on: "John Doe won the Fields Medal in 1948 for X, and his work was influential in quantum mechanics because Y, and was... etc." with inline citations to reliable sources. Admin doesn't delete because of tag; second edit gets posted; A3 is properly declined; new user is not driven away and becomes an admin two years later. Is that gonna happen often? Hell no. If it happens once it's worth it.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 06:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Little used template that adds unencyclopedic information to airport articles and provides non-neutral links to websites similar to spam. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and these links do not add to the article. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Mostly empty (redlinks), malformatted, and I'm not seeing a real reason to have it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)